TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . T. Shanthi and P. Narasimhan, Advocates, with him) for the appellant. Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla, Vikrant Yadav and Ramesh Jadhav, Advocates, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by S.H. KAPADIA J. This civil appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on August 5, 2006 in Tax Appeal No. 22 of 1996 holding the proceedings under section 15(2) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ("the said 1979 Act") are not barred by time. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether mere calling for the records for examination of the case on March 14, 1996 by the Additional Commissioner constituted exercise of power within the meaning of section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act so as to fall within the limitation period specified therein. The appellant is the manufacturer of branded agarbathis having its manufacturing unit at Mysore. It causes entry of various raw materials into the local area of Mysore. For the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise of power within the meaning of section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act and if that be the case then, according to the assessee, issuance of the show cause notice May 20, 1996 was beyond the prescribed period of four years from the date of the order passed by the first appellate authority on March 28, 1992. According to the assessee, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner had initiated proceedings by way of show cause notice on May 20, 1996. According to the assessee, proceedings under section 15(1) could only be initiated by issuance of a show cause notice. According to the assessee, a mere consideration by the Additional Commissioner in his Chamber on March 16, 1996 regarding error in the order of the first appellate authority and the loss to the Revenue cannot constitute initiation of proceedings under section 15(1) nor did it constitute exercise of power within the meaning of section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act. Consequently, according to the assessee, the revisional proceedings (suo motu) were time-barred. The Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was enacted to provide for the levy of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of Deputy Commissioner is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. (4) The power under sub-sections (1) to (3) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date of the order sought to be revised was passed. Explanation. In computing the period of limitation for the purpose of sub-section (4) any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. . . . 15B. Limitation in regard to passing orders in respect of certain proceedings. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 6 and 15, where any proceeding is initiated under section 6 or any records have been called for under section 15, the authority referred to in the said sections sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the revisional authority was empowered to pass appropriate orders. It is important to note that under section 15(1) there was no provision for giving a show cause notice as in the case of some other similar enactments. However, the power under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 15 was exercisable only within four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Under section 15(4), therefore, a period of limitation was prescribed. The revisional authority had to exercise its powers only within four years from the date when the order sought to be revised was passed. Therefore, under section 15(1) read with section 15(4), there was no provision for issuance of a show cause notice. The reason is obvious. Section 15(4) required the revisional authority to exercise its powers within four years from the date of passing of the order sought to be revised. The concept of exercising the power is important, particularly in the absence of any provision for issuance of a show cause notice. When the revisional authority suo motu calls for the records for examination and when he examines that records, the exercise of power under section 15(4) of the Act takes place. This can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
